# The American Spectator

home
Print Email
Text Size

## The Deadly Arithmetic of Nuclear Proliferation

How hard is it to build a bomb? Mr. Biden might want to pay attention.

(Page 2 of 3)

• It takes only 8 days to enrich the medical-grade fuel to make 15 kilograms (33 pounds) of 90 percent weapons-grade fuel.

Other expert calculations assume a faster progression through the three stages, but in round figures one can apply two rules of thumb: 10-10-10 for the three stages of material shrinkage listed above; and 11-1-1 for the three time periods: 11 months for commercial reactor fuel, then one month more for medical reactor fuel, then one week for weapons-grade uranium.

To these rules we can add one more number each, to complete the sequences. Adding a final 10 to the 10-10-10 sequence captures the difference between the minimum amount of fuel needed for a crude uranium bomb a terrorist can use (roughly 60 kilograms—the amount used in the Hiroshima bomb), and a conservative estimate of the minimum amount needed for a highly sophisticated plutonium bomb that a first-rank nuclear state can use to optimize its nuclear arsenal (roughly 6 kilograms—some estimate the number even lower). Adding another 1 to the second sequence tells us that once all needed components are in place, it takes about one day to build an operational weapon. (Final assembly of the Nagasaki bomb took one day.)

Enrichment is by far the hardest part of the total work needed to assemble a nuclear device. But a country does not need to intend a weapons program initially. For example, India’s decision to seek nuclear weapons was driven by its high-altitude 1962 border conflict with China, its serial wars with Pakistan, and a series of Chinese tests: of an A-bomb in 1964, an H-bomb in 1966, and a nuclear-capable ballistic missile later that year. By 1966, India was, courtesy of its 10 years of commercial nuclear activity, close to having fuel for a weapon. It detonated its first device in 1974.

As the late historian Roberta Wohlstetter (full disclosure: my aunt) explains in her landmark 1976 study, The Buddha Smiles

The Indian case…illustrates…that a government can, without overtly proclaiming that it is going to make bombs (and while it says and possibly even means the opposite), undertake a succession of programs that progressively reduce the amount of time needed to make nuclear explosives, when and if it decides on that course.

Thankfully, putting together the vast, industrial-scale infrastructure needed to enrich uranium via these methods is extremely difficult; no terrorist is going to do this in a garage or on the back lawn with presently available methods.

One of the main sources of concern, however, lies in the ability of a state enriching uranium to rapidly assemble a bomb, which—as noted above—need not be a full-scale weapon, but merely a rudimentary device to fit inside a shipping container or a road vehicle. Thus, when the Obama administration uses as the measure of Iran’s weapons status whether it can assemble a modern weapon, the Obama calculus ignores the crude device that can be assembled far more easily and faster—and transferred to Hezbollah.

#### Plutonium, Fission, and Fusion

SO MUCH FOR URANIUM, the fuel of choice for proliferators. But what about plutonium? Plutonium accumulates in the spent fuel collected from nuclear reactors. The U-238 in a nuclear reactor will capture a neutron and, instead of fissioning, become an extremely unstable atom with a combined total of 239 neutrons and protons. In a series of transmutations (changes in chemical composition), this U-239 naturally becomes fissile Pu-239, the most common modern fuel for nuclear weapons.

How a reactor is designed and run determines how readily and conveniently it creates Pu-239. The reactor the Iraqis built in the late 1970s was to run on weapons-grade fuel and was made to maximize plutonium production; Israel understood this perfectly well, and hence destroyed it in 1981—before it was fueled, to avoid scattering radioactive material for miles upon bombing it. Proliferation expert Henry Sokolski writes that a light-water reactor rated at a tenth the size of a commercial plant can be run so as to produce dozens of pounds of plutonium in a year. This is more than enough to fuel several nuclear bombs.

Weapons-grade plutonium makes for a more efficient bomb fuel than weapons-grade uranium, and thus offers more explosive power per pound. The actual amount of plutonium converted into energy inside the core of the Nagasaki bomb was about one gram, or one-third the weight of a penny. Einstein’s E = mc2 equation explains this. The released mass (m) converted into kinetic, thermal, and radiant energy is infinitesimally small—less than a thousandth of the mass that fissioned, as most of what fissioned careens around in search of other nuclei to split. But the “c2” represents, in kilometers per second, the square of the speed of light in a vacuum. Applying this huge multiplier to every atom whose nucleus is split in a detonation yields a vast release of energy (E) in various forms.

A crude uranium bomb is relatively easy to build. The Hiroshima bomb used uranium enriched to 80 percent U-235. Within the bomb, half the uranium was fired—by a miniature version of a World War II warship’s naval gun—into the other half, causing a supercritical mass to form and detonate in microseconds (millionths of a second). The Manhattan Project scientists were so certain a guntrigger design would work that they did not even test it—uranium was in short supply and they needed it to create plutonium for the Trinity test and then the Nagasaki bomb.

But Pu-239 is much harder to make into a nuclear bomb. It must be placed in a special configuration, far more complex than that for a uranium bomb. A plutonium detonation occurs in nanoseconds (billionths of a second), a thousand times faster than a uranium detonation. To make sure as much of the plutonium as possible fissioned, the Trinity and Nagasaki bombs were “implosion” devices. A complicated arrangement of 32 symmetrically spaced conventional explosives surrounded those bombs’ plutonium cores. Thirty-two lenses converted the shock waves from convex to concave, to compress the plutonium core extremely rapidly and evenly. A timing discrepancy among the implosion lenses of 10 microseconds—10 one-millionths of a second—reduces symmetry and can create a dud; a timing discrepancy of just one microsecond is enough to create a partial dud. In essence, plutonium bombs require superspeed, supersymmetry, and supersmall compression.

For a nuclear weapons state seeking to arm missiles, plutonium is the fuel of choice, because it provides more yield per pound, and thus is more suitable for small warheads. It is very unlikely that terrorists would be able to build a plutonium fission device on their own, due to the extreme sophistication involved.

Page:   12 3

## Jack in Wi| 10.15.12 @ 6:46AM

Iran is under constant inspection. All our joint intelligence services and the Joint Chiefs of Staff all agree that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. Even most of the intelligence and military people in Israel agree with that. It is time to do with Iran what we did with China. That is send an ambassador, open diplomatic relations, end immoral and ineffective sanctions, and lets trade with them and build normal relations. The Iranians have been offering to do this since 2003. That is the same year they ended all nulcear weapons programs. The Zionist gang has been trying to get us into a war with Iran for over 2 decades. That would be a terrible war crime, against all international law, and Christian Just War Doctrine. Iran is a treat to no one. Even if it had a bomb what would it do with it? It is time to end all this pro war propaganda and move toward peace with Iran. The price of oil would collapse and the world would be a far better place.

## R Martin| 10.15.12 @ 7:56AM

This is complete nonsense. The poster has no idea what the military and intelligence services of the United States and Israel know or think. He is making it up. And what in the world makes him think the history of Iran since 1979 suggests that country’s government is in any was seeking peace or would be amenable to “talks”?

## Jack in Wi| 10.15.12 @ 10:07AM

The 16 combined intelligence agencies of the the USA issued the National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 reissued in 2011 which stated that Iran stopped all nuclear weapons programs in 2003. The report was first issued in 2007 in a huge revolt by our intelligence services against Cheney and the Neocons who were trying to lie us into a war with Iran like they did with Iraq. The same is true of the intelligence communities in Israel who have publicly revolted against Nutanyahoo and his lies to get them into a war. Google Meir Dagan, Efffriam Halevey, etc. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey has called a war on iran something he would not be complicit in. The military are sworn not to take part in war crimes. A preventive or pre-emtive war against a peaceful Iran would be a terrible war crime. Lots of German general officers were hung for that.

## DTOM| 10.15.12 @ 11:12AM

A peaceful Iran?

Jack, when do you ever come up for a breath of reality?

They intend to kill YOU!

Put down the mushrooms, put down the meth pipe, get out of Obama's stash, get some coffee, wake up you knucklehead! They want YOU DEAD!

Good grief, are you thick!

DTOM

## Occam's Tool| 10.15.12 @ 12:44PM

Yup, peaceful. I believe you, Jack. The centrifuges are running for what purpose, Jack, since they only serve to enrich nuclear fuels.

Moron.

## TLP| 10.15.12 @ 4:11PM

This is a Classic Example of The West refusing to Learn from History.

They LET Hitler build his Military Machine, in Direct Violation of The Treaty of Versailles.

They GAVE him the Sudatenland.

The Nazi Generals had Orders to Turn Around and Go Home, if the Superior French Forces tried to stop them.

The French did Nothing.

EVERYBODY KNOWS that Iran is building a Bomb.

EVERYBODY KNEW that Hitler was building a Massive Military Machine.

The Picture has been Painted.

If The West stands bye, and does Nothing, as Iran builds its Nuke?

It's WWIII.

Of that, I am certain.

## Pecos Pete| 10.15.12 @ 8:14AM

Jack: You said, "Even if it had a bomb what would it do with it? " How about explode it, if for no other reason than to make sure it works?

If you read the article you would now know how easy it is to create a bomb after obtaining a functioning nuclear power plant for "peaceful" purposes.

Following your logic would mean nuclear proliferation around the world. Wow, you be one smart fellow to propose such a result.

## Jack in Wi| 10.15.12 @ 12:21PM

There are a least 50 countries with the capacity to produce nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia already has enough to blow Israel to kingdom come. Who do you think financed the Pakistani bomb? The Turks have the bomb or could make it any time they want to. Do you think they are going to put up with Israeli nuclear blackmail forever? If a suitcase bomb explodes somewhere, look to the Israeli's as source number one. They are the the only ones with the technical skill and lunacy to try such a false flag operation. As to being antisemitic for being against nuclear war, well there are plenty of Zionists who are against it as well. That is why there has been a huge public revolt by the Israeli intelligence and military community, against Nutanyahoo's warmongering. WW1 was started by the idea of greater Serbia. WW2 was started for the idea of greater Germany. WW3 will be started for the looney idea of greater Israel. With all the bombs israel has it could well be the end of the world as we know it. Peace and brotherhood has always been the answer. Shalom is a fine word.

## Occam's Tool| 10.15.12 @ 12:45PM

Pogy: Jack is a self admitted coward and condemns those who serve in the US military as fools. Look it up, sir, and thanks for your service.

## KyMouse| 10.15.12 @ 4:12PM

"Even if it had a bomb, what would it do with it?"

Perhaps use the mere threat of detonation to extort money or whatever from other countries?

Perhaps detonate a less-powerful (low-yield?) version in an enemy country such as Israel, to cause a great deal of damage without as much fallout as a full-scale detonation would cause?

## DTOM| 10.15.12 @ 9:22AM

Jenius Jack,

Send an ambassador to Iran? Didn't we have one there in 1978? Didn't we have one in Libya five weeks ago?

We aren't that stupid. Are you? You seem to be. Wake up Jack, if they had you and you wouldn't convert to Islam, they'd kill you as soon as look at you, or listen to you scream, "But I hate those bloody Zionists, I hate them!" They would calmly cut off your head - like they did to Daniel Pearl...

Wake up, pull your head out and shake off all that sand!

Sheesh...

## Ken (Old Texican)| 10.15.12 @ 11:54AM

Old Texican
Well, Jack in Wisconsin has finally outed himself completely.
He is more than a simple moron. Rather, he is a carefully guided missile" of DIS-information guided by a rather broad knowledge--based enemy of our country.
So
Each time you read one of Jack's posts from now on, simply read them as what our enemies would have us believe.

## Quartermaster| 10.15.12 @ 9:38AM

There are facilities that Iran has kept the IAEA out of. The business about denying that Iran did not have a nuke program during Dubya's misrule was put out solely for political reasons so the left could undermine Dubya.

## RCV| 10.15.12 @ 11:01AM

Why would "the Zionist gang" be trying "to get us into a war with Iran" if in fact Iran had no nuclear designs? Why would Israel waste its precious resources? Why are the other Arab states so fearful of Iran's intentions. Is it just that none of them are as smart as you, Jack?

## Drunken Sailor| 10.15.12 @ 11:45AM

Jack failed critical thinking

## Tom Kyba| 10.15.12 @ 11:50AM

No, it's because they're realists and international politics is more than just he said she said.

## Ken (Old Texican)| 10.15.12 @ 11:57AM

To repeat:

Old Texican
Well, Jack in Wisconsin has finally outed himself completely.
He is more than a simple moron. Rather, he is a carefully guided missile" of DIS-information guided by a rather broadknowledge--based enemy of our country.
So
Each time you read one of Jack's posts from now on, simply read them as what our enemies would have us believe.

## Jack in Wi| 10.15.12 @ 12:44PM

Baloney. The crackpot neoconservatives want any possible country that could challenge Israel eliminated. That is why they wanted Iraq gone. Well they got rid of Saddam Hussian and gave Iraq over to the Shia friends of Iran. They now have the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt. Al quaida is now about to take over Syria, just like they took over Libya. The Neocons have been wrong about everything ever since they went with Trotsky. They have been an unmittigated disaster everywhere they park their fat keesters. They are going to sink Romney with his following their foreign policy.

## R Martin| 10.15.12 @ 1:19PM

Good grief, sir. Your force me to violate my principle of not responding to inane posters. That Arab Spring thing you refer to, the brotherhood in Egypt, al-Qaeda in Syria, mobs in Libya and other assorted riff raff emerging in the middle east are all a product of the left--the current secretary of state and her friend with the ears.

## pogybait| 10.15.12 @ 2:43PM

No Jack, the real problems started with Carter's naivete that eliminated the shah and gave us the Mullahs. The fact that Iran has the technology to produce a weapon is a total failure from American policy planners in general. Listen Bud, you wouldn't know a Neocon from a Neon sign!

## vtwin| 10.15.12 @ 3:09PM

No, American’s problems in Iran started in the early fifties with the CIA and MI6 instigated coup d'état against the democratically elected Mossadegh Government, Ignoring George Washington warning against “foreign entanglements,” because the Mossadegh Government nationalized Iran's oil.

## TLP| 10.15.12 @ 4:17PM

What a surprise.

@sshole thinks this all Our Fault.

Will wonders ever cease?

## Occam's Tool| 10.15.12 @ 7:43PM

It was a cold war, the oil was necessary, and Mossadegh was our enemy. I was a big fan of the Shah, and SAVAK---SAVAK tortured the crap out of Islamists.

## CJW| 10.15.12 @ 12:23PM

Jack
What is your source for saying they ended all nuclear weapons programs in 2003? I hope it is not Joe Biden. If you are in the possession of such facts you should immediately notify Obama and Hillary so they can stop the sanctions and not attack Iran before the election.

## Ken (Old Texican)| 10.15.12 @ 1:09PM

Financially generosity
Old Texican
Well, Jack in Wisconsin has finally outed himself completely.
He is more than a simple moron. Rather, he is a carefully guided missile" of DIS-information guided by a rather broadknowledge--based enemy of our country.
So
Each time you read one of Jack's posts from now on, simply read them as what our enemies would have us believe.

## KyMouse| 10.15.12 @ 4:19PM

Someone said a while back that the Iranians could get a nuclear weapon as quickly as the next flight (or ship) from Pyongyang.

## Hardcard| 10.15.12 @ 7:47AM

aren't these the same inteligence services, that were unaware of the pending attacks on 9-11 2001 and 2012. you are a fool and an anti-semite.

## DTOM| 10.15.12 @ 9:30AM

Yes. The very same ones.

Want peace? Prepare for war!!! And don't apologize...

DTOM

## vtwin| 10.15.12 @ 11:18AM

“The intelligence services … were unaware.” Nonsense, Bush received briefing about the dangers the United States faced from Bin Laden and Al Qaeda from President Clinton administration before taking office but in was Bush that failed to meet with Richard Clarke his counter-terrorism czar until September 12, 2001. And, as we are now learning Bush was receiving warning about Al Qaeda activities in the U. S. from the intelligence services all through the spring and summer of 2001 in addition to the infamous declassified daily brief of Aug. 6, 2001“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”

## DTOM| 10.15.12 @ 11:39AM

vtwit,

So after Clinton could not be bothered with accepting bin Laden on a platter, Bush is to be excoriated because he didn't bother to meet with the little thief Clarke who obviously failed to convince Clinton to take bin Laden out of circulation.

So 9/11/01 was all Bush's fault.

Yeah, sure, right.

And another thing, do you think when Bill Clinton was briefing Bush as he entered the White House he said something like:

"Oh yeah, and watch this bin Laden guy, he's bad news - he'll probably attack us here at home, that's why I didn't take him out of circulation every time he was offered to me."

Does that make a single lick of sense?

No, not even half a lick. What you people have to accept to believe what you believe is simply phenomenal, phenomenal!

Go to the zoo, spend some time in front of the monkey cage, maybe the monkeys can teach you something....good grief.

Another idiot's idiot.

PS. vtwut, didja see the Youtube video of Bush lighting the fuse on the big black bombs in the basements of the north and south World Trade Center Towers? Wasn't it keen? DTOM

PPS vtwit, have you seen how the oceans have already risen a tenth of the thirty feet (vtwit, that'd be 3') they were supposed to rise between 2000 and 2100 according to algore?

You "II"

## vtwin| 10.15.12 @ 2:12PM

Bush was willfully oblivious to the point of being negligent to the dangers posed to our country by Islamic terrorist before 9/11 but is this enough to say 9/11 was Bush’s fault? Had the Supreme Court not anointed Bush leaving Gore free to be elected President would that have prevented 9/11? The answers are we don’t know the only thing we can say with any certainty about our experience on 9/11 was it couldn’t have been any worst.

## TLP| 10.15.12 @ 4:21PM

And yet, vtwit will tell everyone, with a straight face, that everything we've been going through the last 4 years, is BUSH'S FAULT.

He's a Piss Ant.

Treat him thusly.

## Tom Kyba| 10.15.12 @ 11:51AM

And so it's Bush's fault. "Surprise, surprise surprise!"

## Ken (Old Texican)| 10.15.12 @ 12:01PM

Vitwn, as Obama said to Clit Eastwod..."shut-up and fuuk yourself."
Yep!

vtwin is purp

## R Martin| 10.15.12 @ 1:22PM

Vtwin is really Smart Car with motorcycle envy.

## PCC| 10.15.12 @ 7:54AM

This article demonstrates why people of normal intelligence cannot understand scientists, and vice versa.

## DTOM| 10.15.12 @ 9:27AM

Are you saying you didn't understand it and that you are of "normal intelligence?"

Maybe you are ignorant of elementary physics and chemistry. Maybe you are the problem, not the "scientist."

There are some things that must be studied to be understood. And your failure to study them is not the responsibility of the author, it is yours.

Grow up. Wise up. Do your danged homework. Become less ignorant-ignorance is an easily remedied condition.

## Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.15.12 @ 8:31AM

Was Mr. Wohlstetter posting as Gene on Friday:

gene| 10.12.12 @ 1:35PM
An Old Man ranting "They have no missles" over and over and over.
They do have missiles, Joseph, but
IT DOES NOT MATTER.
1. One Suicide Bomber.
3. One Suitcase.
Do the Math, Joseph, use some COMMON SENSE 101, and realize like the rest of the Grownups in the U.S. of A., they do not NEED a missle.
What part of this do you not understand, Joseph?

## gene| 10.15.12 @ 9:20AM

Gene was posting as gene. However, the point is that if Iran has this weapon, they will use it and they do not need a missle. The shame is the MSM letting Biden get away with this BS nonsense.

## Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.15.12 @ 10:44AM

Thank you for clarifying. My point in asking is that I think he makes today the point you made then.

## DTOM| 10.15.12 @ 11:14AM

Great minds, thinking alike...it shouldn't surprise.

## gene| 10.15.12 @ 11:31AM

I apologize for my NY sarcasm. Where ever I live, it seems to follow me around. Maybe it is in the DNA.
The fact is that the countries do not recognize Israel's right to exist. They constantly make statements about destroying it and the MSM ignore them. About one third of all the votes taken in the U.N. have something to do with Israel.

Zech.12
[3] "....And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it......."

## DTOM| 10.15.12 @ 11:41AM

Fuggeddabowdit....

DTOM

## TLP| 10.15.12 @ 4:26PM

Remember what I said at the end of the contest.

"We had good ones, bad ones, and the 5 gene sent in."

Nuff said.

## gene| 10.15.12 @ 4:57PM

I did not particpate in the contest. But after it was over, I submitted what I thought was the most appropriate thing to say which paraphrases Mel Brook's "Blazing Saddles", pays tribute to the late Alex Karras, and sums up Vice President Joseph Biden:
"Biden don't know. Biden only pawn in game of life"

## gene| 10.15.12 @ 5:02PM

Excuse my poor typing skills. That should read:

"Biden not know. Biden only pawn in game of life".

## Harry the Horrible| 10.15.12 @ 10:42AM

I don't think they can make a suitcase nuke; it is a pretty sophisticated device and, movies aside, a darn heavy (200 lbs+) suitcase.

But you can put a crude nuke in a container on a container ship, on in the hold of yacht. Or in the luggage compartment of an airliner. Or in the bed of a pick-up truck. Or put in it a sub, of which Iran has several ranging from Kilo class, to mini-subs.

Just because they haven't weaponized their nukes into a warhead, doesn't mean they can't deliver it.

## gene| 10.15.12 @ 11:36AM

As for a sub or missles? All you need is WWII
V-II technology used by Nazi Germany. Simply because you do not have to hit anything. All you need is to explode it over the middle of the country in space. The EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) will stop all technology in its tracks. Cars, computers, phones, all kaput. One second and we are back in the 1880's. H*LL's BELLS, the same thing can happen without a missle if we have a repeat of the solar storm, "The Carrington Event", that happened in the 1800's.

## DTOM| 10.15.12 @ 11:43AM

A reasonable nuclear device detonated in an offshore submarine would launch a mini-tsunami in any low-lying port - that was another scenario described to us as kids in the 1960's...

DTOM

## Occam's Tool| 10.15.12 @ 12:49PM

Harry: Yup. Put it in a cargo ship with lead shielding all around. And then: the third largest refinery in the US is right off Galveston Bay: Texas City. Easy Ocean access.

## vtwin| 10.15.12 @ 12:06PM

The Iranians are smart enough to build a bomb but not smart enough to realize a retaliatory response from the United States would be assured annihilation?

## Occam's Tool| 10.15.12 @ 12:50PM

Vtwin: 1) The Iranians are led by religious fanatics who treasure death.
2) Who will be doing the massive retaliation? Obama? OOOOh, scare me.

## vtwin| 10.15.12 @ 1:50PM

1) There is no empirical evidence the “Iranians are led by religious fanatics who treasure death.” This is just another neo-con talking point auguring for another Middle-East war.
2) … and thus deterred there is no need to retaliate.

## TLP| 10.15.12 @ 4:28PM

Obviously, "Bringing about the return of the 12th Imam, means nothing to you.

But then, you're an @sshole.

So, why would it?

## Occam's Tool| 10.15.12 @ 7:44PM

Tim, danke, brother from another mother.

## DTOM| 10.16.12 @ 9:11AM

I'm thinking TLP, you may insulted an awful lot of bodily orifices out there calling vtwit one as you have.

I'm just saying...

## Cobalt| 10.15.12 @ 8:37AM

We should never underestimate the potential, for the proliferation of nuclear materials and technology, on the black market.

800,000 killed, 900,000 injured

150 kiloton bomb detonated in New York City

http://www.atomicarchive.com/E.....ple1.shtml

## Cobalt| 10.15.12 @ 8:57AM

7x7x7 hours = 99.9 of the radiation is gone

Surviving a Nuclear Attack On Washington D.C.

By Sidney J. Freedberg, Jr.

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....9926/posts

## Occam's Tool| 10.15.12 @ 12:51PM

Yup, and an airburst minimizes long term

## Occam's Tool| 10.15.12 @ 12:52PM

Sorry: airbust minimizes long term fallout. I would read "when Angels wept," a counterfactual history by Swedin, and excellent nuclear historian.

## Ken (Old Texican)| 10.15.12 @ 9:25AM

Well, Jack in Wisconsin has finally outed himself completely.

He is more than a simple moron. Rather, he is a carefully guided missile" of DIS-information guided by a rather broadknowledge--based enemy of our country.
So
Each time you read one of Jack's posts from now on, simply read them as what our enemies would have us believe.

## Quartermaster| 10.15.12 @ 9:39AM

More along the lines of a useful idiot.

## Pecos Pete| 10.15.12 @ 9:50AM

Q: Village Idiot I think.

## DTOM| 10.15.12 @ 11:15AM

The idiot's idiot?

DTOM

## chuck| 10.15.12 @ 8:38PM

Idiot, moron, blowhard, vicious anti-Semite,coward, freaking know-it-all, name-dropper, worthless POS,...........just to name a few of Jack's better qualities.

## nathan| 10.15.12 @ 9:49AM

Do any of you read Aviation Week? It's a trade publication. How many of you suscribe to it? Raise your hands. (Don't see any hands raised?) They did a two page story on this subject recently. Two things to take from what they wrote. One, enriched uranium is all over the place. If they wanted, they could just buy the stuff instead of going to all the trouble of doing it. Also if they wanted a bomb, buy it instead of building. Given that, what are they doing? Published reports say much of what they have enriched has been diverted to making medical isotopes as they previously said they would. They have 500K cancer patients who need treatment.

Second thing the article says, despite advances in ground penetration technology, no bomb today that anyone has can reach underground facilities. All they can do is "make noise" direct quote. To really get at those centrifuges, you have to invade, invade a country bigger than Iraq. We lost that war before BHO took over. What makes anyone think that we would win THIS one even with MR as president? Our track record since WWII really sucks folks. We look worse than A-Rod in the playoffs.

Now given the Aviation Week article, a VERY respected magazine by the way (notice again I do quotes as opposed to just ranting) what do y'all think we should do?

## pogybait| 10.15.12 @ 11:03AM

Iran moved it's processes in 2003 to the province of Isfahan on the outskirts of the small city of Najafabad. They built the facility three floors below a medicine factory and our assets there have noticed a recent large transfer of fissionable material at that location. It is a well know fact that the Iranians have already tested an implosion system and detonator. The idea that somehow they aren’t creating weapons or that having nuclear weapons will make the mullahs less erratic and more reflective seems doubtful.

## Occam's Tool| 10.15.12 @ 12:58PM

Take out their water network and electrical network. Too bad nobody reads old Captain Basil anymore. "The Indirect approach" remember?

Two other points:
1) that level of enriched uranium is not readily available in nature.
2) We haven't fought a war "LeMay" style since WWII. He never lost a battle. The question, Nathan, is what level of "collateral" damage you are willing to inflict. You are willing to inflict almost none; therefore, YOU would lose. I am willing to inflict any degree necessary. Therefore, I would WIN.

I don't recall Clinton's airstrikes in Bosnia costing him many votes. If it is relatively brief, practically bloodless (on the US side) and not too expensive (no boots on the ground until they give up), I think America will allow masive bombing raids on Iran.

## nathan| 10.15.12 @ 3:38PM

Ah we have our very own Arthur Harris in our midst.

You will note that LeMay's firebombing and the ensuing deaths did not break the will of the Japanese people and by themselves without the two nuclear attacks would not have forced the end of the war. We "probably" would have invaded with the attendant casualties.

As for Harris, his area attacks on German cities and the resulting death toll didn't break the will of the German people either.

And you seem to be wanting to have it both ways here? On the one hand these guys are suicidal fanatics who don't care about their lives? On the other hand massive area raids which may kill 10/100/500K lives will persuade to surrender? Which is it? Can't be both.

No, I would win because I won't engage in wars that don't need to be fought in the first place, Iraq case in point. And I won't do things like torture (as foreigners see it) that help recruit more enemies to fight us. West in that room endangered his troops by serving as a recruitment poster. You're willing to do "anything". You're right in that regard, I won't compromise our principles and end up being as bad as the people we fight against. No, I really won't do that but I'll win anyway.

## Occam's Tool| 10.15.12 @ 7:53PM

Funny, neither the Germans nor the Japanese have been aggressive since LeMay finished with them.

They "love death" in the theoretical. So did the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese. But, once beaten down, they haven't restarted, have they. Bomber Harris didn't bring down Germany by himself, but LeMay brought the Japanese close to complete starvation. Both of them, however, greatly contributed to the current pacifism that guides each country today---NO ONE could say that Germany and Japan lost WWII because they were "stabbed in the back." They were beaten to a pulp.

The Japanese GOVERNMENT wasn't ready to collapse until the two nukes (thanks for justifying their use, by the way, and pointing out that nukes DO CHANGE THE WILL TO RESIST), but the people were fine with surrender.

Unlike you, I respect my enemies' will to resist. We're going to have to beat them to a bloody pulp to win.

To repeat, my point is that a paradigm changing assault is necessary. Those would be tacnukes, Hiroshima sized, airburst to minimize severe fallout. This would bring those maniacs in touch with reality, as it did the Japanese government, which was just as fanatical and bloodthirsty.

Again, thank you for supporting my argument. As you have pointed out, nothing less than the hardest shot we can give them will change our enemies' minds.

## Occam's Tool| 10.15.12 @ 7:57PM

The rulers of Iran are suicidal fanatics. The people, I don't know so much. Obviously, something must be done to separate the two. Suggestions: destroy the electrical, water systems, or destroy a few cities. Either one is easily within our capabilities.

By the way, Nathan, what is "winning" to you? My "Winning" is that my daughter can do whatever the hell she wants without some asshole screaming "get in a burkha" at her, if, for example, she goes to visit her relatives in Denmark.

But you seem to be happy with Israel destroyed and Islam triumphant, so what is winning to you?

## Occam's Tool| 10.15.12 @ 7:58PM

Again, the nukes broke the will to resist. I suspect they will for Iran as well.

## nathan| 10.16.12 @ 8:13AM

Amazing, I have to admit, I'm stunned just stunned when I read postings like this. Follow me for a moment if you will. History lesson time. In 1953 WE not they attacked them by overthrowing the Mossedegh government which had not threatened us in any way and posed no threat to us. So at that point by any criteria you wish to name we are the bad guys. We are. We impose and help keep in power a kleptomaniac human rights abuser. Not the actions of nice people. That's the current context.

So people like you want to go ahea and attack AGAIN a country that has not threatened us, has not really done us any serious harm and poses no real security threat to us. But you don't just want to attack this country, you are proposing a pre-emptive nuclear strike that will kill hundreds of thousands of people. No declaration of war for you right? Constitution, what the devil is that?

Your proposal at this point comes dangerously close to mass murder especially in the absence of hostile action directed at us. It does. And your statement "the rulers are suicidal fanatics", there's no convincing proof of that. Not enough to throw the kind of weapons at them you're talking about. Let me continue and finish.

## nathan| 10.16.12 @ 8:22AM

This is just a repeat of what we heard with Iraq. "They represent a mortal threat to Israel, they have weapons of mass destruction! They have to be stopped! We have to play superman and ride to rescue!" And funny, none of it was true. All neocon imperialistic nonsense. So I'm supposed to listen to people like you who dragged me into a war with 5,000 dead Americans, a Christian community destroyed, cities like Fallujuah destroyed (some said the battle was like Stalingrad) 100K civilians at least dead, a place that served as a recruiting ground for bad guys that might not have come in if we had stayed out, yeah people like you have a LOT of credibility here. Surrrrreeee. I just LOVE the track record of you folks.

So yeah, we screwed them over in 1953, let's do it again.

No. There's not enough here to merit this action. We don't know enough to kill 100's of thousands of people. And if we launch an unprovoked attack like we did decades ago we do not increase our security we weaken it. Today we are viewed around the world as the bad guys because of stuff like this.

So no, no and no.

## Bill8472| 10.15.12 @ 1:37PM

You do quotes? -sigh- My hero...

## Thom| 10.15.12 @ 6:04PM

Nathan,

Have you ever dug a 5 foot deep hole with a shovel? Did you get to five feet deep with the first shovel full of dirt? Works the same way with JDAM guided penetrators.... Put enough of them into the same hole one after the other and pretty soon you get to the depth you want. Follow that with a MOAB and the roof caves in .... One B1 can dig the hole. One B2 can drop a couple MOAB. Problem solved. During our adventure one night in Iraq back in 2003 a B1 delivered a cocktail of bomb types designed expressly for a particular type of penetration and collapse of the underground structure. Do you know now many of the older 2000 lb penetrators a single B1 can carry?

I used to read Aviation Week way back in the 70s. Perhaps that should tell you something.

## Houdini| 10.15.12 @ 10:23AM

It appears that Iran is a "when" rather than "if" nuclear power. I imagine we'll know how close "when" is after the Israelis attack the Iranian facillities....hopefully we will help them finish the job...do we really want Hezbollah to have access to a nuclear device? If you feel they can be contained, get ready to lose a city.

## DTOM| 10.15.12 @ 11:24AM

Harry,

If they only had one, who would they use it on, us or the Israelis?

My thought is that they would use it on us because in their minds Israel is already toast based on the conventional military capabilities that our littlest President has pushed into the Muslim Brotherhood's hands. And we are the great Satan - they figure that if they can take us out, Israel is just an after-action mop up...

What eludes their feverish little brains is just how big and mean we are when properly riled up.

If they thought that the initial response to 9/11/01 (clearly not the '12 version) was our best shot, I do believe that a properly angry USA will clarify any confusion they might have on their long term ability to eradicate them.

And compliant so-called moderate Muslims will have to be taught to not cooperate with the radicals, the way we taught the Japanese in August of 1945. Assuming a US President with functional testes...

Sheesh.

## gene| 10.15.12 @ 11:55AM

This should remind people of what Carlos Marchello alledgely said before JFK was assinated.
If he killed Robert Kennedy, JFK would move heaven and earth to track him down and destroy him. If he helped kill JFK? Then Bobby would just become another lawyer under LBJ. Which is what happened. Israel receives billions from us in military aid. If they have just one bomb? Military thinking and Common Sense 101 is that it will come to us first. Cut off the tail and the dog will still bite you. Cut off the head and the problem is solved.

## gene| 10.15.12 @ 11:44AM

Missles?
- What do you think a drone plane is?
- Or a "remote controlled plane" The technology for the latter is all over ther world and accessable for modest amounts of money. I cannot believe the statements of some in these chains. They are made by people who were watching their TVs and computers when a handful of men from the Middle East took out the Twin Towers with some basic flying lessons and some carpet cutters. Are you people blind or something? We are so vunerable right now, it is Ridiculous! As is Biden for suggesting the opposite and lying about the Embassy Attacks.

## JayDick| 10.15.12 @ 12:29PM

They could also use a piloted plane on a suicide mission. All those virgins, you know.

## gene| 10.15.12 @ 2:23PM

Absolutely. One plane, one bomb, one pilot on a suicide mission.

H*ll's Bells. They would not even need a nuclear device. Just a few thousand pounds of homemade fertilzer and a determined pilot and a target.
Biden is spouting nonsense and his followers are blind.

## topcat52| 10.15.12 @ 9:48PM

So, when the Obama administration claims they will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb, how will they prevent this? How will they know when Iran needs only a few weeks to get to 20%? Perhaps they are there already. What credibility does the President have?

## Mnestheus| 10.16.12 @ 2:48AM

As israel has always led Pakistsn in nuclear throw weight , in both absolute and per capita terms- the latter by several hundred to one, one wonders why John Wohlstetter is more worried than Persia's nearest neighbors, the Russians, who by any measure have the neighborhood well and truly dtererred.

## TLP| 10.16.12 @ 9:03AM

Is that what they're calling it, these days? A lifestyle choice? Really?

So, today, in Gay Bathhouse Barry's AMERIKA, being the Town Whore is a Lifestyle Choice?

Here's a Middle Aged Skank (who I wouldn't Dork with Ross' dork, bye the way) telling everyone that she's getting Plowed so many times in the Bus Terminal Men's Room (one would presume) that she can't afford \$9 a Month for her De-Sperming Pills. She can't afford to keep Shoving Quarters into the Multicoloured Condom Dispensors everytime somebody getting off a bus Drunk wants to Shove Something her way.

No, no. We're supposed to pay, while she attends a Very Expensive School on a very limited Scholarship that she received as the Winner of last years Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest. Not the one on the 4th of July. The one on Saturday Nights. And, it's not THAT Nathan's. It's a Guy NAMED Nathan. And it only involves One Hot Dog.

That is the Spokesperson for Gay Boy's Women Outreach.

That's like having Al Sharpton be your Liaison to the "I gots me a OBAMAPHONE MF*rs!" Community.

Okay. It would be like having Eric Holder Run Automatic Weapons down to the Drug Cartels, in Mexico.

What? No way.

It would be like him finding out that 2 of our Embassies had been Attacked, and 4 of our Personnel had been Murdered, and then jumping on a Plane for Vegas, to Fund raise and go to a Party at Jay Z's house.

Why is this Race Close, again?

Oh yeah. "OBAMAPHONE!"

## Vance P. Frickey| 10.21.12 @ 2:07AM

Iran has been irradiating U-238 in their "medical" and "research" reactors for a long time. We know they possess plutonium.

According to the paper "Can Terrorists Build Nuclear Weapons," (http://www.nci.org/k-m/makeab.htm) there IS no non-weapons grade plutonium. Even plutonium with what professional nuclear weaponeers consider excessive Pu-240 and other "neutron source" isotopes that would tend to cause predetonation in a nuclear device could - in the opinion of veteran weaponeers Theodore Taylor, J. Carson Mark, Eugene Eyster, William Maraman and Jacob Wechsler - be used by terrorists to make nuclear weapons.

Alternative geometries for plutonium implosion bombs are known in the open literature. "Watermelon primaries," thought to be a secret of the Lawrence Livermore weapons lab, were discussed by a Chinese nuclear weaponeer speaking here at an informal meeting, prompting a shake-up in the US Department of Energy's security department and a flurry of accusations regarding nuclear espionage and theft of US weapons designs. A properly made "watermelon primary" (the shape is the result of some complex hydrodynamic calculations) reduces the number of explosive lenses from 64 to two.

Firing circuits can be made with chips sold openly by the National Semiconductor Corporation, which advertises "nuclear weapons" as one of the applications for its "Damn Fast Operational Amplifier." So plutonium fission bombs are closer to reality for terrorist groups than ever before.

## Vance P. Frickey| 10.21.12 @ 2:22AM

A.Q. Khan was helpful enough to his customers when he was selling nuclear weapon infrastructure kits to Iran, Libya and other countries to include a engineering drawing set for a nuclear weapon which was obtained from the Chinese.

My point is that sophistication in nuclear weapons design is more widely spread than Mr. Wohlstetter seems to think. Non-state actors are closer to joining the nuclear weapon owners' club than ever; some of A.Q. Khan's nuclear physicist colleagues in Pakistan are radical enough to have been seeking to share their expertise with radical Islamic groups.

We're much farther along the terrorist path to nuclear weapons ownership than is generally acknowledged.

Pakistan, for example, is a state strongly influenced by radical Islam. Thanks to A.Q. Khan's group in Pakistan and a competing group of nuclear weaponeers there, the world has the Islamic Bomb. When Iran finally announces their ownership of deployable nuclear weapons, there'll be a Sunni Bomb and a Shia Bomb.

William Langewiesche, the international correspondent for Vanity Fair magazine, has described the rapidly dropping cost of membership in the nuclear club in his book "The Atomic Bazaar: The Rise of the Nuclear Poor."

There'll be a point at which the cost of getting nuclear weapons falls low enough for wealthy terror groups. Iran already "shares" non- nuclear weapons - some of them ballistic missiles of some sophistication - with terrorist groups actively attacking the state of Israel.

## Vance P. Frickey| 10.21.12 @ 2:25AM

The Muslim Brotherhood is now in control of Egypt, a country with delivery systems for nuclear weapons. It or Al-Qaeda could wind up in control of Syria, which has tried to build a nuclear reactor purpose built for making nuclear weapon fissiles (bombed by the Israelis in 2007) and is reputed to have an active weapons of mass destruction program including chemical and biological weapons.

We're closer to terror groups having both the motive and ability to use weapons of mass destruction than we've ever been - partly due to what has been characterized as "the Arab Spring" transferring weaponry and political power from a group of traditional despots downward and outward to groups of people which, unfortunately, include Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and related groups. The take-down of Osama bin Laden by US forces may be the rationale for the use of mass weapons against Americans and their worldwide interests, because cutting off the head of Al-Qaeda hasn't really impacted their cell-like command structure.

The events of September, 2012 may be an indication that the Obama campaign's celebration of the bin Laden takedown is premature. Obama has much to answer for in the lack of security precautions at our consulate in Benghazi.

Mr. Wohlstetter's article is food for thought about how else we may be dramatically unprepared for the acts of terrorist entities who come into the bounty of weapons held by the various despots of the Middle East, Maghreb and West Asia.

## FLASHBACK TO: 1995

• ### Pope Culture

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.

• ### Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.

• ### In the Absence of Guns

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.

• ### Counting the Costs of Clintonism

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.

• ### Chuck McHagel

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.

• ### It’s the Best Time of the Year

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?

• ### The Bush Crack-Up

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?